Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout616 W. MULBERRY ST., THE SHELDON HOUSE - APU - 15-10 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• 40 Planning & Zoning Board August 19, 2010 Page 17 Other Business: None Meeting adjourne at 8:25 p.m. Steve Dush, NS Director 'A - C Butch Stockover, Chair • Planning & Zoning Board August 19, 2010 Page 16 components and subarea plans and to prevent or minimize adverse effects and impacts upon the public and neighborhoods and to insure compatibility of uses." Member Schmidt said when they have a game plan and when we review it we have a very good idea of what the impact will be. We can have a better idea of whether this additional permitted use(s) fit in. Here everything is a little vague (aka speculative). That's where her discomfort is and she doesn't think it's fair to the neighborhood to approve this with the information they have. Member Smith said based on some of the comments he's heard, he thinks the process that we have for the addition of a permitted use is solid and he thinks it's a very useful tool in a city that's changing. He does take some exception to the statement that it is inappropriate for staff or this body to use. They have been able to go through the criteria, make a data driven decision that will favor the neighborhood but as these neighborhoods transition, he thinks that this tool is appropriate to use. We'll struggle with it as it's applied in different cases but he thinks staff did a very good job of recognizing and trying to accommodate a shortcoming in our zoning map. Member Lingle said he'd like to stand corrected on his historic preservation argument —he thanked staff for bringing up the post office example because that reminded him that there is a distinction. Secondly, in his mind, this is very different than 1124 W. Mulberry. His recollection of their debate was mostly. because there was already a commercial use there and the Board was trying to find a way to make it a legal commercial use. Being on an intersection like that there were other circumstances to consider. Finally, he would tend to agree with what everyone has said —especially Member's Smith comment about drilling down to the basics and could we support this as not being detrimental to the public good. He's not sure he could do that. He thinks there's a neighborhood impact that's hard to measure -and he thinks it would be detrimental to the public good. Chair Stockover asked for some guidance should the motion be to deny. What would they have to find? Eckman said essentially if the applicant doesn't comply with all of the requirements of the Land Use Code, than it must be denied. He said you have Sections 1.3.4 and 3.5.1 to think about. Part of 1.3.4 is the requirement that you find it is not detrimental to the public good. Even if it just fails on one point, that's enough to support a motion to deny. Member Smith moved to deny the 616 W. Mulberry Street — the Sheldon House —the Addition of Two Permitted Uses, # 15-10 because he found the application to be detrimental to the public good due to neighborhood compatibility issues. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Schmidt said she does have a concern because it also came up on the 1124 W. Mulberry application. She heard some people say that we should not change the use to let the applicant have a windfall. That's not why the Board makes their decisions and she doesn't think that's in anyone's purview. The city as a whole gives large companies with huge profits tax breaks, etc. Why should we exclude individuals who are trying to work hard, make a sufficient living, and improve their businesses? She would hesitate using that as an argument against allowing something like this Motion was approved 6:1 with Hatfield dissenting. • L Planning & Zoning Board August 19, 2010 Page 15 Member Schmidt said she had a question as relates to the definition of B&B. At the Edwards House they had a lodge they could use for conferences. If you have a large parlor, could you host meetings there? If a B&B is not making enough money to maintain the property, then it's going to deteriorate and that wouldn't help the neighborhood. Are there other ways within that to increase income capacity? Shepard said to keep in mind that the Edwards House is on Meldrum which is NCB. He does not recall their . approval process so if you're looking for what the zone district allows here, see page 10 of the staff report. It provides a list of the other things they can do. Shepard said renting the parlor is not a principal use --A could be used as a random accessory use such as a family reunion. They would not be allowed to become an event center. Member Campana noted the Edwards House went from office building to B&B. Member Campana said he thinks Shepard did a great job on the staff report. He certainly understands the applicant's situation, especially in this economy. He also fully understands why it's taken the Board a while to deliberate. This is a challenging issue. The hinge point for him is that this neighborhood doesn't have covenants to protect it. Where he lives, they have covenants and they wouldn't be having this discussion —the character of the neighborhood would remain with what's allowed by covenant and zoning. That might be part of the frustration living in old town --they don't have covenants that offer that additional protection. He thinks we have to take that into consideration when evaluating this particular situation. He's not going to be able to support this proposal. There is definitely a time and place for addition of a permitted use but he doesn't think this is it. Member Lingle asked if in their deliberation of an addition of a permitted use if they should consider whether it's speculative or if there is an intended final use? Eckman said no —the Code doesn't' have any criteria for the Board to measure whether a business is speculative or not. It's not for the Board to decide the success or failure of businesses. Eckman said it should be strictly considered from the criteria provided in the Land Use Code. Member Schmidt said she agrees with Member Campana. She drove by and initially thought because it was on such a busy street that it could be converted to offices. What caused her pause was the alley and how it's connected to the neighborhood. She's have difficulty in going with a change of use — especially the business service part of the request. Member Smith said occasionally we look at something and it has zoning that at the time may or may not make sense. That's why he asked the earlier question about the thinking behind it. He sees a "flaw"... a challenge. We try to fulfill the vision of the Land Use Code. The Board's purview is to deal with projects with what they have. They have some flexibility --it's engineered into the system. They try always to be predictable —not too subjective. As it stands with being in the NCM, he doesn't think he can support this proposal. He can't say with 100% confidence that this isn't detrimental to the public good. Chair Stockover said he's of the opinion given enough time and effort you can make anything work. He asked Eckman to stop him if he's out of line in any way, shape or form. His concerns are mostly financial. It would be great if you had two lawyers on the first floor and a hair cutting salon. He's not sure the use will generate enough income with three low -people volume uses to support 3,000 square feet of space so the tendency is to maximize. If we were to consider approval for this, would there be any way they could limit the number of people in that building without creating a significant enforcement issue for the City? Eckman said there is a provision in the Code where you could impose conditions. It says" when any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with this section, you may impose such conditions and requirements on such use as are necessary or desirable to accomplish the purposes and intent of the Land Use Code to insure consistency with the City Plan and its adopted Planning & Zoning Board August 19, 2010 Page 14 Whitcomb or Loomis Street that this starts to look like a "buffer" property. It starts to act as if it were in the NCB like a lot of the NCB properties we see along Remington or Meldrum. Shepard said the "choke point" was a good analogy since you have such a large downtown zoning presence one-half block away. Shepard said we are not contemplating a rezoning in this area. Member Schmidt asked when you consider a building that has professional offices or business services in it, would you consider that a public building. Would someone in the general public feel free to go in? Is something different about a professional office building in this context versus other buildings? This is a neighborhood and granted it fronts on a very busy street, but you also have an alley that people will be using. Are you really changing the character because you're putting in something that now is more similar to Aggie Liquor? In other words, anybody could come to check out what's in the professional office building. Schmidt said that does change the character from a neighborhood perspective for her. With a B&B you know who is coming and someone is there to monitor. Shepard said he's walked down many streets with the professional offices in houses. He doesn't think that they have drop -in traffic. There's no impulsive shopping trip that ends up in one of them. He thinks it's a professional service for which appointments are required. Aggie Liquor is not a good example because it is a retail establishment. Member Schmidt asked if that logic also applies to business services. Shepard said even more so — there specific times are allotted for massages, hair cuts, etc and they are most likely on an appointment basis. Member Campana asked if the B&B was limited to 6 bedrooms. Shepard said it's limited in the zoning district. Campana asked Shepard if he thought the intent was to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. Shepard said yes. Chair Stockover asked about Campana's intent. Campana said he thinks they have a B&B there because when they created that zoning overlay it was already in existence. They didn't really want to have it in that zoning but they added it there and limited it to 6 bedrooms. Campana believes their intent was really to keep the intensity down. When you add office and personal services, we would push that boundary. Adding more commercial is a little bit more of a stretch than the B&B_ Member Hatfield said he thinks the adjacent neighbors could consider the B&B guests as "transient° — whereas as an office complex they'd see the professional staff and their clients more regularly. He said that may not be too much of a problem. Another point of view relates to property rights. He's all for property rights. People should be able to use their property rights to their benefit as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of the people around them. From his point of view, in this particular case it would not be imposing unless there would be a large increase to the amount of traffic. . Chair Stockover asked about Home Occupation... besides yourself, how many employees are allowed. . Shepard said one. Member Lingle asked Eckman if there was a definition of public good. Eckman said there is not. It's like a general phase such as health, safety and welfare. It's a subjective term. Lingle said he agrees with the staff reports analysis of Section 1.3.4 (A) on page 10 where it's stated there would be no change on the level of activity between the existing and proposed uses. He tends to agree with that but on the other hand if you go to the neighborhood concerns about incremental change similar to East Oak where there are very few single family occupied houses left. Lingle said it comes back to the question is that detrimental to the public good? Shepard said one of the characteristics of East Oak is that it is one block from East Mountain. What is different for this project is it does not share a block face with Whitcomb or Loomis; it doesn't really relate to the neighborhood as such; and it has alley access and parking.. • Planning & Zoning Board August 19, 2010 Page 13 the bedrooms, they have an adequate amount to meet those needs. Shepard said this property does have parking for its non-residential component. Chair Stockover said he had questions for Shepard. The main level has total of 1497 square feet, the second level has 1496 for a total of 2993 square feet; if granted, are there regulations relative to cubicles in the offices. Shepard said he doesn't think there are regulations related to cubicles. That would be something to be considered at the major amendment stage, if approved. They would get down to a greater level of specificity on how the space will be used at that stage. Stockover said as a Board they are responsible for looking for best and worse case scenarios. Based on the number of permitted uses that have been granted, he's totally in favor of them in theory. We need a process to say if it works, however, in a particular spot; e.g., a bike shop in a house near the bike trails. He has more reservations if the addition a permitted use is on a speculative basis. When we're looking at this application, we don't know the end user. Stockover said it's good due diligence for the Board to discuss more. Stockover asked Eckman if we truly feel there is not adequate parking that would be detrimental to the public good. Is that correct? Eckman said he'd like to go through the things the Board must find. They must decide if is not a detriment to the public good and it would be helpful to say why that is the case. Additionally, they need to make a finding under Section 1.3.4 (B) —the analysis can be found in the staff report. Also in the staff report on page 7 is an analysis of Section 3.5.1—which is the compatibility standards of the Land Use Code. Additionally, the Board should consider the Addition of Permitted Use standards found in LUC Section 1.3.4 (A), 1-7 which have to do with compatibility with the zone district. Stockover has some concerns about the number of employees, their ability to put cubicles in the rooms or break up some of the rooms. 2993 square feet is a lot of space and it worries him that it might put too much stress on the neighborhood as far as parking is concerned. He's not very comfortable for rezoning for economic gain. Shepard noted this is not a rezoning request —this is a use question. The underlying . zoning will stay the same. Member Smith said in the staff report there is great discussion about the East Buffer Area Policy as a part of the West Side Neighborhood Plan (WSNP). Staff is speaking to the notion that this transition between the downtown (and its intensities) and the NCL zone to the west. What seems odd is there's a little "choke point" where the NCM runs right along Whitcomb to the downtown area and there is no NCB zoning. He asked Shepard to explain further. Smith said maybe he can't say whether there's some appropriate potential rezoning to NCB to create that buffer of zoning. Shepard said the WSNP talked about the gradation of uses as he just described. They used different semantics and terminology that didn't exactly translate into the zone districts. Shepard said he explained in the staff report that the WSNP used terms such as "buffer", "transition", and "conservation". What we got in zoning was NCB, NCM and NCL. What the Plan left open for interpretation is what constitutes the buffer. Is it just the NCB or is it part of the NCM? Because in the NCM you can do some non-residential land uses whereas in the NCL you cannot. In the NCM you can do child care centers, adult day respite cares, and B&Bs. Right next door in the NCB you can do offices. Shepard said he tried to reconcile what the WSNP said with the zoning and they just don't work precisely in concert. He said that was not unusual with subarea planning and zoning. In fact, it's more typically the case. It does leave room for interpretation and his interpretation at the staff level was that this area along Mulberry, next to the downtown could probably at some point been considered for NCB. They skipped the NCB and went right to NCM. Shepard asked "was that a glitch" "a gap", a "mistake", "vague" —he doesn't know. All he knows is what the Plan tells him and what the zoning allows. His interpretation, particularly with the alley and the frontage along a busy street and the opportunity to not impact either E is Planning & Zoning Board August 19, 2010 Page 12 He wondered if Shepard knew what that area is zoned: Shepard said it's either NCB or NCM but he doesn't know off hand. Lingle was wondering how long those structures have been used commercially. Shepard said he's aware of a church converting to a real estate office in that area at Mathews and Oak. He knows there used to be a lumber yard that backs up into that neighborhood. He knows there some 3 story multi -family there. He knows there are some conversions on Peterson across from the library. Shepard is not sure how far east the NCB goes but ultimately you get into the NCM zone before you get into the NCL zone —just like on the west side. Member Lingle said if he understands the process correctly, if we added professional office as an allowable use, it would still have an underlying zoning. He wondered if whether this applicant or some future owner could request a demolition review and have the house torn down and an office building built there. Shepard said no, it's protected --the house is a locally designated landmark. Director Dush said there is a process for a locally designated landmark. City Code Title 14 speaks to the alteration/demolition review process whereby an applicant needs to go to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) for both a conceptual and final review. Should the LPC deny an application to demolish the building, it can be appealed to City Council. Dush said "he'd never say never" but there is an extensive process in place to protect locally designated landmarks. Lingle said from his experience, it's better known as a demolition delay. Dush said the alteration/demolition delay relates to potentially eligible landmarks —those that have not already received the designation. Dush said if you have a building 50 years old or greater and a determination is made my both him and the LPC Chair that the property is not landmarked but is potentially eligible for landmark designation; it goes through the above described process. If a building is already landmarked, it's a different process. Lingle said we should not say it's protected because he doesn't necessarily believe that's the case. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman said it's very difficult to accomplish the demolition of a locally designated landmark unless it's iri a dangerous condition. He used as an example the discussion to demolish the old post office at College Avenue and Oak Street. That building was then designated as a landmark and it stands today. It's entirely within the discretion of the LPC and later the City Council whether it can be demolished. Member Lingle .asked Shepard about the major amendment process. Would it get as specific as a limited amount of area within a building? It would seem there's a compliance enforcement component that Zoning would have to monitor. If it were approved for so many square feet and the basement or loft was converted illegally; is there a way to handle it through the major amendment that doesn't become cumbersome? Shepard said they'd look at that at the time of the building permit/change of occupancy application. That would be something they'd document. Over time if there are such expansions internally, they'd probably rely on the complaint system for enforcement. Member Hatfield asked Shepard if this is approved, is there any way this would infringe on the rights of those who recommend denial to use their property in any way. Shepard said all the surrounding properties have existing rights including permitted uses allowed in the zone and home occupation. Those properties would continue to enjoy any rights they have presently no matter how the Board decides tonight. Member Schmidt asked Shepard if parking would be adequate given the mix of long/short term rentals and business use. Shepard said the office parking standard was written for larger scale office projects. When we get down to something at this level, our office standards regulate to a maximum allowed not a minimum required. Fortunately we have in the Code, the exception to the office standard, and the alternative compliance section. Hypothetically speaking, if the 1200 square feet were maxed out at 3 spaces/1000 and they wanted more than that; we would gladly allow that based on neighborhood compatibility. Schmidt said Murphy's is not really required to have parking for office use. It appears for 0 Planning & Zoning Board August 19, 2010 Page 11 commercial real estate sign. Those kinds of changes to the detriment of the residential neighborhood are not fair. She said to argue that because they are on the border is ridiculous. Like the other two speakers, she's asking respectfully that the Board deny this request. Harmony Reiliy lives at 428 S. Loomis Avenue. She just wanted to voice her opposition to this proposal. She believes the three previous speakers said it very eloquently. They touched on all the bases that she wanted to touch on so she'll basically just leave it at that. She just wanted the Board to know that when you move from a residential area to a commercial area the quality of life is diminished along with property value. Even though Mrs. Murphy has a proposed kind of sequencing of business moving in over time, the people living there will see the effect of the change over time. It won't diminish what will ultimately happen. She respectfully requests the Board deny the proposal. Michael Smith lives at 420 S. Loomis. Like his wife Nancy stated, their property abuts the property under consideration.. Basically the Board has already heard what their concerns are. He'd like to make it a little bit more personal. They were impressed by visits to Fort Collins to visit their two children. They were very impressed with the quality of life in old town and purposefully choose to purchase property in. old town so they could easily walk to the amenities downtown. He asked the Board, °How would you like to live with 5-6 business .in your backyard?" They are very concerned about the incremental inclusion of business properties moving west on Mulberry. He said he believes it would corrupt the quality of residential life which is a primary selling point for bringing them to Fort Collins. It changes the quality of their residential experience. Nothing personal against the Murphys in their attempts to use their property —it has to do with the quality of life of affected neighbors. He'd appreciate a vote against this proposal. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman said he'd like to comment —as it was with the Otter Box project, if he Board is to approve this request will need to add to their motion a finding that it is not detrimental to the public good. Eckman reminded the Board there is.a rebuttal procedure for the applicant. Mrs. Murphy said there are a few things that are important for her to point out. She knows that Nancy Smith owns and runs a business as a therapist out of her home. Her clients come and go using street parking. She also mentioned she's shared photos with the Board of a number of historic structures in which businesses are operated. She sees how they are very well maintained. Both Michelle Haefele and Mike Knowles spoke of what has occurred at 1124 W. Mulberry. She said their plans for 616 W. Mulberry are truly not related to Mr. Alexander's decision on what to do with his business. Finally, the most glaring incorrect comment made relates to the fact that she had an appraisal done —the appraisal was done when they bought the house in 1997. At that time they said the highest and best use would be businesses. She has no plans to sell the house. She's trying to save the house so they don't have to sell it. Member Schmidt asked when the B&B is the busiest. Murphy said their high season is the spring, summer and fail. During that time the parking lot is full and there's a lot of coming and going. Member Hatfield asked how many more people will be using the building in the business scenario versus the B&B scenario. With the B&B's six bedrooms she can have their 6 cars, her own and her basement renters' cars. In her estimation, it will not change dramatically but there could be people coming in to do business with the businesses so there would be that additional traffic. Murphy said the extra patio space they have now is not conducive to parking, they would have to make some changes to the way the parking was set up but they could use that, area for 3-4 more parking spaces. There are also 2 spaces in the garage. Member Lingle asked Shepard if he had a zoning map that showed east side neighborhoods. He asked if the images that Mrs. Murphy provided are in that 2 block stretch of East Oak opposite from the library. • • Planning & Zoning Board August 19, 2010 Page 10 Knowles said that Shepard said that each variance request is viewed independently and doesn't take into account the effect on the neighborhood as a whole. While this might have some merit in some zoned areas, he feels that when it comes to residential areas it's imperative that we look at the big picture and not view them as one item as a time. If the City wants to have a discussion about what to do about making Mulberry commercial, by all means let's have it. Let's not do it incrementally, one property at a time. He respectfully requests the Board deny the request. Michelle Haefele lives at 623 Monte Vista. She asked, "What is a major amendment?" (She'd like to wait for an answer before she makes her comments.) Shepard said a major amendment is how an existing PUD (Planned Unit Development) is altered, changed or amended. There is a minor amendment procedure and a major amendment procedure depending on scale. The requirement for an addition of a permitted use is that it be done in conjunction with a PDP (Project Development Plan), an ODP (Overall Development Plan) or an amendment to an existing plan. Shepard said the governing document in this case is the Martin B&B PUD approved as a B&B within the NCM Zone. The request is one step in a potential two step process. There can be no amendment unless this Board affirmatively approves the request. If so, the next step is to amend the Plan. The process for amending the plan is to amend it as a major amendment with a public hearing process. So the intent there is that you just can't come the Planning Department and say you'd like to add a use to a piece of ground. It's done in conjunction with something else. It makes the process more conservative and limits speculative land use being added. Member Schmidt said that if the permitted uses are approved, then the next step would be when they want certain businesses to come in. They would have to have another hearing before an Administrative Hearing officer. Shepard said that's correct. Shepard said the Building Department would not proceed with a change in the certificate of occupancy without a properly amended PUD. Schmidt asked if -you did the businesses individually, do you have to get approval each time or just once. Shepard said that he'd expect the best person to answer that is the applicant but he would expect the major'amendment would be done for all of the potential changes inside the building. Schmidt asked if they could still use it as a B&B. Shepard said you always get the underlying approval. Director Dush said he'd like to add —effectively there are two steps here. If this was approved, then they can go through the Type 1 (public hearing) for a major amendment that looks at the site plan and addresses the concerns specific to the proposed used. It would be there they would address issues such as parking. Michelle Haefele said her concern is not about the parking. Her concern is about the incremental chiseling away at their residential zone. She thinks it's unfortunate that in "planning speak" they talk of residential as "down zoning". It should be considered the most sacrosanct of zones. Their house, bought under a certain set of zoning conditions, is their biggest investment. She said this chipping away along Mulberry has a negative effect on their property values and the character of their neighborhoods. She realizes that tenants will live in that building but tenants in a basement apartment are not the same as homeowners. Haefele said a B&B is a different kind of commercial use —permitted in the NCM zone. Business and offices are not. Neighborhoods need neighbors to survive. When they don't live there, the neighborhood character is deteriorated. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for the Planning & Zoning Department and the Planning & Zoning Board to continually grant these unearned windfalls to property owners. This property owner bought under a certain set of conditions. She should not expect to have her economic value improved. Haefele said Murphy told them at the neighborhood meeting they had the property appraised. You don't do that out of curiosity, you do that because you want to sell. That's exactly what happened at 1124 W. Mulberry. That property owner "flat out lied to them" and now it's sitting there empty with a big E • or Planning & Zoning Board August 19, 2010 Page 9 used. Mrs. Murphy said the main floor has a living room, a dining room, a kitchen, a parlor and a large hall like entry. The parlor and living room will become offices. The dining room will become a conference room shared by all the professional/personal & business service tenants. The kitchen would also be a shared resource. Murphy said on the second floor there's a large landing and four bedrooms. Member Lingle asked about access to the two apartments. Murphy said the basement apartment has both a front and back access —neither goes through the main house. The loft apartment uses the main house entry and up three flights of stairs. Murphy said all the offices have their own doors/privacy—there would be no interaction/interruption with the professional/personal & business service tenants. Member Schmidt asked what kind of personal services shops would be located there. Murphy said massage therapy, esthetician, etc. Schmidt asked if she would be the property manager —renting out the individual offices. Murphy said that very much depends on the demand. She has not ("on purpose") gone out to look for the business. She wants to get approval first. She is a licensed real estate agent and she would be the property manager. She could go with either individual renters or renting the units in a collective fashion like for associates in a law practice. Public Input Nancy Smith resides at 420 S. Loomis. The back of her property juts up against their parking area. The parking area was originally a part of her property but sold sometime before her ownership. She said she is an adjacent neighbor (went to the neighborhood meeting) but was not approached personally. She's very much against the proposal. She's present to speak about the neighborhood. She thinks to allow one of the communities "glorious" homes to be come a commercial enterprise housing multiple businesses would be a step that would change the character and face of the neighborhood. It would open the door to the spread of commercial use along Mulberry and maybe even the whole quadrant that is their neighborhood. They live in one of the most historically preserved neighborhoods of the City. She'd hope there would be no further encroachment once one exception is made. Mrs. Smith does not think there would be adequate parking. She said you can not have overflow parking on the patio without blocking the current parking spaces. When you talk about six offices, you have not only the people that work there but their clients. They can't park on Mulberry; they'd have to park on . Whitcomb or Loomis. It bothers her that it brings "outsiders" not just residents to the area. It would be something if there were not currently places available for the types of businesses being proposed but there's lots of vacant commercial space. Mike Knowles lives at 623 Monte Vista Avenue. He said as was mentioned Daryl Alexander came before the Board requesting a zoning variance for his property at 1124 W. Mulberry where he ran a State Farm insurance agency. At that meeting, he requested and was granted a variance for a B&B and office space. At that meeting, there was an overriding concern of neighbors who spoke against the variance request due to the precedence it would set. It would set a negative, incremental impact on the neighborhood and would change it from residential to commercial use. As was also mentioned earlier, James Murphy —Sheldon House B&B, voiced his opposition stating the idea of precedence. He also mentioned he thought commercial use should be along the Mason Corridor, etc. Here we are nine months later and the owners of the Sheldon B&B are acting on the precedence set last November. All the concerns they had about that property seemed to have vanished even though they are only separated by 5 blocks. It seems that the concerns expressed by the neighbors have been realized and he wonders what the next nine months will bring if this request is approved. He said if you walk the blocks between the Sheldon House and Shields, you'll see multiple houses that in the last 12 to 18 months have been remodeled with extensive landscaping. It shows there are people who will live on 'the busy' street of Mulberry if they feel their neighborhoods would be protected. • Planning & Zoning Board August 19, 2010 Page 8 In 1991, the implementation of the West Side Neighborhood Plan resulted in the creation of three new zones: (N-C-L, N-C-M and N-C-B). The subject parcel, (west of the alley) and R-H (east of the alley) and unifie instead of the alley, became the dividing line between f district but without the intervening N-C-B as the buffer a With the zone district dividing line shifting east from the now slightly removed, by one lot, from the Downtown zi and the entire block, was rezoned from R-M i under the N-C-M. And then Whitcomb Street, -C-M and Downtown — Canyon Avenue Sub- nd transition area. (See attached Zoning Map). alley to Whitcomb Street, the subject property is ne instead of adjoining the buffer area. Staff recommends approval of adding professional office and personal and business services as additional uses in the N-C-M at 616 West Mulberry Street, subject to the following condition: The submittal of a Major Amendment as the site specific development plan shall be required to properly document the change of use and facilitate the change of occupancy and shall be subject to Administrative Review. Applicant's Presentation Cynthia Murphy, with her husband James, owns the Bed & Breakfast (B&B). She said the two-story wood frame house was built in 1904 by Charles and Martha Sheldon. The home was moved to this site in 1955 from its original location at 131 S. Howes. At that time it was placed on top of a full basement. In 1990, the Martin family opened a B&B called the West Mulberry Inn. The current owners, James and Cynthia Murphy have owned the B&B since 1997. They are asking for the addition of two permitted uses The building has been locally designated as a historic landmark (2004). Since the proposed uses are subject to adapting only the interior of the existing structure and would not impact the exterior, there are no issues with historic preservation. The applicant estimates that of the total house square footage, only 1,270 would be converted. This represents the first floor living room and parlor, and the four second floor bedrooms. Mrs. Murphy said the house also contains a two -bedroom apartment in the basement and a caretaker's loft on the third floor. A total of seven spaces are provided. Should overflow parking be required, they can convert a recently paved patio close to the two car garage into additional parking. They are asking for the addition of two permitted uses -professional office and personal and business services to maintain the economic viability of their business and to maintain the historic character of the structure. They have a home on West Magnolia and consider themselves good neighbors. Mrs. Murphy said she realizes that some people have concerns but she's also aware that they sent out over 350 notices for the neighborhood meeting. They had 3 people from the neighborhood —two that had concerns and one that was in support. She's talked to all of her immediate neighbors and although she could not bribe or bargain with them to attend tonight. She has not had anyone tell her they have a problem with what's proposed. She's also aware of the request for permitted uses at 1124 W. Mulberry. That is unrelated to their request. As mentioned in a letter to the Board, her husband James did attend the neighborhood meeting. She said the reason why he went and talked against that particular project was because they didn't want to have the competition of another B&B. She respectfully requests the Board approve the additional uses. Member Schmidt asked how large is the basement? Mrs. Murphy said it's a 2 bedroom, 1400 square foot unit. Member Lingle asked for clarification —the house is over 5,000 square feet but your proposal is only for 1270 square feet of that. Would the B&B used be phased out over time? Mrs. Murphy said yes, over time, the B&B use would be phased out. Lingle asked here to explain how space in the house would be Planning & Zoning Board August 19, 2010 Page 7 2. The P.D.P., as modified, will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a plan that otherwise would comply with the standard. 3. The reason the P.D.P., as modified, is equal to or better than a plan that would comply is that the proposed building will feature tilt -up concrete that is coated with a texture and will not be exposed gray concrete. in addition, the tilt -up concrete is mitigated by the use of metal panels at the base and a generous fenestration pattern in the middle thus providing effective architectural relief. Finally, the new building will match the existing building to which it is attached resulting in an overall appearance that is consistent and harmonious. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6:0. Project: 616 West Mulberry Street - The Sheldon House Addition of Two Permitted Uses, #15-10 Project Description: This is a request to add two permitted uses to the existing building at 616 West Mulberry Street. The two uses are professional office and personal and business services. The site is currently a bed and breakfast with six or fewer beds that was approved as the Martin Bed and Breakfast P.U.D. in 1990. The site is located on the north side of West Mulberry Street between Whitcomb and Loomis Streets and zoned N-C-M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density. This zone normally does not allow Professional Office and Personal and Business Services as permitted uses. Recommendation: Approval with Condition Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Ted Shepard noted the proposed additional uses are not permitted in the N-C-M district. The request has been reviewed by West Side Neighborhood Plan and the criteria of Sections 1.3.4 and 3.5.1 which address compatibility within the zone district and the surrounding area. A neighborhood meeting was held. The house is locally designated as a historic landmark, which protects the exterior from any changes. The condition stipulates that, in compliance with Section 1.3.4, a Major Amendment be submitted as the site specific development plan that must be approved prior to authorization of any change of use. The parcel is located on the north side of West Mulberry Street between Loomis and Whitcomb Streets. The east property line adjoins the north -south alley that connects Mulberry and Magnolia Streets. From 1965-1991, the alley was the dividing line between the R-M, Medium Density Residential, and the R-H, High Density Residential zone districts. To the north, east and west are single family homes that were platted as part of Loomis Addition in 1887, Whitcomb Street is now the dividing line between the N-C-M and the Downtown zone. The site is located within the "Conservation" sub -area of the West Side Neighborhood Plan (WSNP) adopted in 1989. It is important to note that the parcel is separated from the "Business/Financial" sub- area to the east by one-half of the block. The WSNP identifies Whitcomb Street as the dividing line between the two sub -areas. Prior to the WSNP, the alley between Loomis and Whitcomb Streets was the dividing line between zone districts. The parcel is separated from the "Core Single Family" sub -area to the west by two blocks along Mulberry Street. Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Hatfield, Lingle, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Excused Absence: Carpenter Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Shepard, Stanford, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review Director Dush reviewed the agenda. Citizen participation: None Chair Stockover asked members of the audience and the Board if they'd like to pull any item from the Consent Agenda. Member Schmidt requested that Item 2, North College Taco John's Project Development Plan, #13-10 be moved to discussion. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the June 17, 2010 Planning & Zoning Hearings Member Schmidt moved to approve item # 1 June 17, 2010 minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. North College Taco John's Project Development Plan (PDP), # 13-10 3. Otter Box Warehouse Expansion — Addition of a Permitted Use, PDP, # 17-10 4. 616 West Mulberry —the Sheldon House —Addition of Two Permitted Uses, # 15-10 North College Taco John's Project Development Plan (PDP), # 1 Project Description. 's a request for a new 747 square f urant featuring two drive -through lanes. T e ite - now vac an ad ocated 1603 and 1605 North College Avenue. The site is .75 acre and will share an access drive with the existing Executive C sh and Self Storage, the adjoining parcel to the north. The parcel is zo -S, Service Commercial. Approval